From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Certiorari Denied

U.S.
Feb 20, 2001
531 U.S. 1148 (2001)

Summary

holding a cautionary instruction to the jury is ordinarily presumed to have cured prejudicial impact

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Romero

Opinion

FEBRUARY 20, 2001


00-955. HURLEY ET UX. v. MOTOR COACH INDUSTRIES, INC. C.A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 222 F.3d 377.

00-958. POWERSCREEN OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL. v. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT CO. ET AL. C.A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 243 F.3d 559.

00-959. YOUNG ET AL. v. UNITED STATES. C.A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 221 F.3d 1355.

00-960. VIRGIN ET AL. v. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY ET AL. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

00-964. STOUT ET AL. v. BYRIUDER, AKA DOCHERTY MOTORS, INC., ET AL. C.A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 228 F.3d 709.

00-966. SYED v. HERCULES INC. ET AL. C.A.3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 214 F.3d 155.

00-968. SMITH v. COLORADO. Sup.Ct. Cob. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 13 P.3d 300.

00-971. MORRIS v. TEXAS. Ct. App. Tex., 11th Dist. Certiorari denied.

00-974. CADLEROCK PROPERTIES JOINT VENTURE, L. P. v. CONNECTICUT COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ET AL. Sup.Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 253 Conn. 661, 757 A.2d 1.

00-975. DUBRIA v. SMITH, WARDEN. C.A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 224 F.3d 995.

00-976. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, ET AL. v. ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF OHIO, INC., ET AL. C.A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 214 F.3d 730.

00-977. BARRETT v. BOROUGH OF CARLISLE C.A.3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 234 F.3d 1264.

00-978. BRASS v. GDQ CORP. C.A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 229 F.3d 1148.


Summaries of

Certiorari Denied

U.S.
Feb 20, 2001
531 U.S. 1148 (2001)

holding a cautionary instruction to the jury is ordinarily presumed to have cured prejudicial impact

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Romero

holding that `"[t]he questions and comments by [the officer] placed [the defendant's] answers in context, much like a prosecutor's questions at trial." The court also noted that because the comments arose in the context of a pre-trial interview, "[t]hey were not the type of statements that carry any special aura of reliability [with the jury]."'

Summary of this case from Sweet v. State

holding document marked "confidential" not protected by privilege

Summary of this case from Blumenthal v. Kimber Manufacturing
Case details for

Certiorari Denied

Case Details

Full title:CERTIORARI DENIED

Court:U.S.

Date published: Feb 20, 2001

Citations

531 U.S. 1148 (2001)

Citing Cases

Orcutt v. Kettering Radiologists, Inc.

When considering a motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss, due to an arbitration provision, a court has…

Mccarthy v. Cadlerock Properties

Cadlerock Properties Joint Venture, L.P. v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection, 253 Conn. 661 (2000).…